Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif in an interview with Samaa TV stated:
“Tactical weapons, our programmes that we have developed, they have been developed for our protection. We haven’t kept the devices that we have just as showpieces. But if our safety is threatened, we will annihilate them (India).”
The statement from Pakistan saber rattling was the result of India, with evidence blaming Pakistan-based terrorists for the attack at the Uri army base that killed 19 Indian soldiers.
India said on Monday it had the right to respond when and where it chose to a deadly attack on an army base in Kashmir, after blaming Pakistan for the raid that killed 18 soldiers.
The assault, in which four gunmen burst into a brigade headquarters in the town of Uri before dawn on Sunday, was among the deadliest in the disputed Himalayan region and has sharply raised tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals.
So now Pakistan responds and threatens India that if it takes action, they reserve the option to retaliate with a nuclear attack on India.
So how possible is it that Pakistan and India could have a nuclear war? After all, Iran yesterday threatened to wipe Saudi Arabia off the face of the map when special Adviser to the commander of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Hassan Firuz Abadi on Tuesday threatened to “erase Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabis from existence.”
But no one is sure if Iran built its nuclear warheads. India, however, has 118 warheads, and Pakistan has 130. China, across the Himalayas has 180 — 263 if we include the DF-26 waiting dismantlement.
And all we need in some incident like Pakistan is a trigger happy leader and we will have a nuclear catastrophe where the world will end up in starvation mode. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when.
Despite hopes that South China Sea tensions were easing, provocative comments from US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter risk setting fire to the diplomatic tinderbox.
After months of escalation in the South China Sea, this week showed signs that tensions between Washington and Beijing were, at last, abating. On Thursday, two US warships were granted permission to dock in Hong Kong, mere months after the USS John C. Stennis was forbidden from doing so.
That goodwill has been quickly squandered.
"[The US] remains the region’s strongest military and security partner of choice," Defense Secretary Carter said while onboard the USS Carl Vinson in San Diego, California, according to International Business Times.
He added that the Pentagon plans to "sharpen our military" edge in the Asia-Pacific, claiming it is "the most consequential region for America’s future."
The US Navy has conducted a number of provocative "freedom of navigation" patrols within the 12-mile territorial limit of these islands, despite China’s repeated calls for calm.
The Pentagon will likely perform increased military patrols with Japan, which recently voiced its support for US operations in the region.
"Japan, for its part, will increase its engagement in the South China Sea, for example, Maritime Self-Defense Force joint training cruises with the US Navy and bilateral and multilateral exercises with regional navies," Japanese Defense Minister Tomomi Inada said earlier this month.
Russia is sending more warplanes to Syria to ramp up its air campaign, a Russian newspaper reported on Friday, as the United States said diplomacy to halt the violence was "on life support" but not dead yet.
Fighting continued to intensify a week into a new Russian-backed Syrian government offensive to capture rebel-held eastern Aleppo and crush the last urban stronghold of a revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that began in 2011.
Moscow and Assad spurned a U.S.-Russian brokered ceasefire agreed to this month and launched attacks on rebel-held areas in Aleppo in potentially the most decisive battle in the Syrian civil war.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke by telephone for a third straight day, with the top Russian diplomat saying Moscow was ready to consider more ways to normalise the situation in Aleppo.
But Lavrov criticised Washington's failure to separate moderate rebel groups from those the Russians call terrorists, which had allowed forces led by the group formerly known as the Nusra front to violate the U.S.-Russian truce agreed on Sept. 9.
The United States made clear on Friday that it would not, for now, carry through on the threat it made on Wednesday to halt the diplomacy if Russia did not take immediate steps to halt the violence.
With diplomacy failing, US officials say initial brainstorming sessions are taking place throughout the government at the staff level on alternatives to working with Russia, ranging from economic to military measures.
They stress no recommendations have been presented to the White House. One official said the US is looking back to the "Ukraine playbook," a reference to the non-military measures the West used to pressure Russia for its aggression toward its eastern neighbor.
US officials estimate Aleppo, bombarded by Syrian and Russian strikes, could collapse in the coming days, with up to 300,000 civilians trapped in the city with what the US believes is "little clean drinking water" and no medical care available.
One official said the US is "seeing indications" of preparations for a possible ground assault. The amassed troops, which may include Iranian and other militias, are backed up by Russian aircraft and regime helicopter-launched barrel bombs, which the US said includes cluster munitions and phosphorous bombs.
A limited military intervention could include actions such as shooting down Syrian planes or striking regime air bases, but the White House has been reluctant to consider such measures, which risk a military confrontation in which Moscow shoots down US planes or draws in Iran to the fight.
Should Obama order such an operation, US officials said it could begin quickly as the US is well aware of airfields and bases both Syrian and Russian forces are using as a result of overhead surveillance and monitoring of communications.
Further sanctions against the Syrian regime, and even Russia, is also an option, officials said.
The White House publicly has said it's still working on the possibility of expanded sanctions against the Syrian regime and officials said existing executive orders could provide the authority to sanction Russian individuals and entities supporting Damascus.
Russia is sending more warplanes to Syria to ramp up its air campaign, a Russian newspaper reported on Friday, as the United States said diplomacy to halt the violence was "on life support" but not dead yet.
Fighting continued to intensify a week into a new Russian-backed Syrian government offensive to capture rebel-held eastern Aleppo and crush the last urban stronghold of a revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that began in 2011.
Moscow and Assad spurned a U.S.-Russian brokered ceasefire agreed to this month and launched attacks on rebel-held areas in Aleppo in potentially the most decisive battle in the Syrian civil war.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke by telephone for a third straight day, with the top Russian diplomat saying Moscow was ready to consider more ways to normalise the situation in Aleppo.
But Lavrov criticised Washington's failure to separate moderate rebel groups from those the Russians call terrorists, which had allowed forces led by the group formerly known as the Nusra front to violate the U.S.-Russian truce agreed on Sept. 9.
Syrian army and a Palestinian pro-government militia (the Jerusalem Brigade') have captured the Palestinian Handarat refugee camp in the northern outskirts of eastern Aleppo two days ago. Moreover it looks very much like this time they will be able to hold on to it. For anyone following the battle of Aleppo closely this is very significant as the previously inconclusive fighting for Handarat had been a focal point of the battle for over six months now.
Eastern Aleppo remains a heavily defended fortress but real, if slow, progress is being made.
Officials said the speed of the Russian and Syrian offensive against Aleppo has put pressure on the White House to accelerate its deliberations and forced policy makers to look at options they previously were reluctant to seriously consider.
Apparently even this, actually rather slow pace of advance, has Washington in panic mode.
Reuters reports that as a result the Americans are holding "staff-level" talks to come up with a recommended course of action for Obama to take:
As a result, one of the officials said, the list of options is narrowing to supporting rebel counter attacks elsewhere with additional weaponry or even air strikes, which "might not reverse the tide of battle, but might cause the Russians to stop and think."
Another official said any weapons supplies would not include shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, or Manpads, which the Obama administration fears could fall into the hands of Islamic State militants or al Qaeda-linked groups.
The most dramatic option under consideration – but considered less likely – would be a U.S. air strike on a Syrian air base far from the fighting between Assad’s troops and rebel forces in the north, officials said.
So there you go. The US wants us to believe that under the Kerry-Lavrov pact it was willing to bomb al-Nusra and any rebel group which did not disassociate from them, but because that deal fell through the US will now ramp up arms shipments to the very same rebel groups and is even considering launching air strikes against the Syrian government in their support. Makes sense. If you're going to start a WW3 with Russia it might as well be for the benefit of jihadist who declined to commit to your truce because it didn't include al-Qaeda.
Actually much of the Reuters report is spent explaining the US doesn't have any brilliant options here. Firstly even the hawks themselves don't know if there is a move to play here:
Even administration advocates of a more muscular U.S. response said on Wednesday that it was not clear what, if anything, the president would do, and that his options "begin at tougher talk," as one official put it.
Training rebels has been an embarrassing fiasco, and Kurds are mainly fighting ISIS, plus they are enemies of the rebel camp. The Russians won't be shaken by either option.
The key thing to understand is that it's not Russia which outmaneuvered the US. It is the US which tricked itself into the blind alley it finds itself now. The US isn't struggling to come up with a move that will impress the Russians because of Russian strength in Syria, but because of American weakness -- weakness which isn't borne out of lack of US capability, but out of the utter lack of any sense, logic or rhyme to its policy.
Recall this is the power which was first fighting Assad, is now fighting Assad and ISIS both, and came close to fighting Assad, ISIS and al-Nusra-friendly rebels all at the same time. Obviously when you find yourself both backing and opposing so many of the factions it becomes impossible to "win".
